CDZ The provisions of President Obama's latest executive order

[320 Years of History]

I wonder how many folks have read the executive order Mr. Obama issued. (That is assuming the formal order has actually been issued. The rest of Mr. Obama's executive orders are here: Executive Orders .) From what I can find on the White House website, the provisions of it are as follows:

Provisions of the executive order announced yesterday (some don't seem all that "new" to me):

• Ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers.
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. It is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.
    
  • A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000.
    
  • Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.
• Finalize a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.
  
• FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks.
  
• Improve the NCIS system/background checking process to allow processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.
  
• Dedicate $4 million (ATF funding) and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN).
  
• Establish the National NIBIN Correlation and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services, making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally, regionally, and nationally.
  
• Licensees shipping a gun must notify law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.
  
• Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
  
• Increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.
  
• The Social Security Administration (SSA) will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.
  • Provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
• Permit certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.
  
• Direct the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.
  
• Review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
  
• Consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Now I keep hearing about "taking away guns." Under the guidelines of the executive order announced on 4-Jan-16:

• Who is at risk of having their guns taken away?
  At best, folks who have mental illnesses that make them potentially dangerous to themselves or others were they to posses a gun while having that illness(s).
• Who is at risk of losing their ability to sell guns?
  Folks who fail to comply with existing rules governing the sale of guns.

You know who we know wants to take away people's guns and right to have them? Dianne Feinstein.



That woman clearly doesn't care what the 2nd Amendment says. Mr. Obama is not Mrs. Feinstein. Mrs. Feinstein does not speak for or represent everyone who wants to identify and implement one or several tactics to reduce the incidence of gun-related violence in the U.S.

What did Mr. Obama say about the 2nd Amendment? He said,

• In 2008, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away."
• In 2011, "Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters."
• In 2012, "What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.
• In 2013, "We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill."

Current law bars federal agencies from retaining records on those who pass background checks or from using such records to create a federal gun registry. Nothing in the president’s order would change that.

The weapons Mr. Obama would like to see banned in accordance with an "assault weapons band" are the following:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Seeing as those criteria still allow one to have semiautomatic weapons, just not the ones expressly described above, I don't have a problem with such a ban coming to be. If it does, it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Just buy one that lacks any of the noted military features, is expressly made as a semiautomatic gun, fires 10 or fewer rounds from a fixed magazine and that isn't a semiautomatic shotgun fitting the noted criteria.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"You know who we know wants to take away people's guns and right to have them? Dianne Feinstein."

This is a lie, Feinstein advocates no such thing.

In the edited, out of context video clip, she was referring only to firearms subject to regulation in the old AWB, not 'every' firearm.

 

[MisterBeale]

I wonder how many folks have read the executive order Mr. Obama issued. (That is assuming the formal order has actually been issued. The rest of Mr. Obama's executive orders are here: Executive Orders .) From what I can find on the White House website, the provisions of it are as follows:

Provisions of the executive order announced yesterday (some don't seem all that "new" to me):

• Ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers.
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. It is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.
    
  • A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000.
    
  • Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.
• Finalize a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.
  
• FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks.
  
• Improve the NCIS system/background checking process to allow processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.
  
• Dedicate $4 million (ATF funding) and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN).
  
• Establish the National NIBIN Correlation and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services, making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally, regionally, and nationally.
  
• Licensees shipping a gun must notify law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.
  
• Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
  
• Increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.
  
• The Social Security Administration (SSA) will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.
  • Provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
• Permit certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.
  
• Direct the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.
  
• Review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
  
• Consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Now I keep hearing about "taking away guns." Under the guidelines of the executive order announced on 4-Jan-16:

• Who is at risk of having their guns taken away?
  At best, folks who have mental illnesses that make them potentially dangerous to themselves or others were they to posses a gun while having that illness(s).
• Who is at risk of losing their ability to sell guns?
  Folks who fail to comply with existing rules governing the sale of guns.

You know who we know wants to take away people's guns and right to have them? Dianne Feinstein.



That woman clearly doesn't care what the 2nd Amendment says. Mr. Obama is not Mrs. Feinstein. Mrs. Feinstein does not speak for or represent everyone who wants to identify and implement one or several tactics to reduce the incidence of gun-related violence in the U.S.

What did Mr. Obama say about the 2nd Amendment? He said,

• In 2008, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away."
• In 2011, "Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters."
• In 2012, "What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.
• In 2013, "We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill."

Current law bars federal agencies from retaining records on those who pass background checks or from using such records to create a federal gun registry. Nothing in the president’s order would change that.

The weapons Mr. Obama would like to see banned in accordance with an "assault weapons band" are the following:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Seeing as those criteria still allow one to have semiautomatic weapons, just not the ones expressly described above, I don't have a problem with such a ban coming to be. If it does, it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Just buy one that lacks any of the noted military features, is expressly made as a semiautomatic gun, fires 10 or fewer rounds from a fixed magazine and that isn't a semiautomatic shotgun fitting the noted criteria.

Great post.

Generally I would agree with you.

If it weren't for Agenda 21 and all these desperate Federal false flags trying to brain wash the public to give up their guns.

I don't even own a gun, nor do I want one. But I am really paranoid of all the globalist politicians that are so desperate to curtail Americans right to own them.

What are they planning in the future? Why are they so desperate to get them away from the public?

If you know how American politics work, you know that it starts small, and takes a little bit at a time. It is called incrementalism.

First they start with the scary military looking and acting weapons, and then your hunting and protection pieces are gone. That is how this works.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Who is at risk of having their guns taken away?

At best, folks who have mental illnesses that make them potentially dangerous to themselves or others were they to posses a gun while having that illness(s).

Who is at risk of losing their ability to sell guns?

Folks who fail to comply with existing rules governing the sale of guns."

No one is 'at risk' of having his guns 'taken away'; nor is anyone 'at risk' of losing his ability to sell firearms.

Anyone adjudicated mentally in a court of law, having been afforded full and comprehensive due process, is by law a prohibited person who may not possess a firearm.

That someone might only be suspected of being mentally ill is not 'justification' to prohibit someone from possessing a firearm, or to compel them to 'surrender' their guns, absent affording that individual full and comprehensive due process.

And if someone fails to obey the law with regard to selling firearms, and is convicted in a court of law of that crime, such an individual has only himself to blame for losing his ability to sell firearms.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Who is at risk of having their guns taken away?

At best, folks who have mental illnesses that make them potentially dangerous to themselves or others were they to posses a gun while having that illness(s).

Who is at risk of losing their ability to sell guns?

Folks who fail to comply with existing rules governing the sale of guns."

No one is 'at risk' of having his guns 'taken away'; nor is anyone 'at risk' of losing his ability to sell firearms.

Anyone adjudicated mentally in a court of law, having been afforded full and comprehensive due process, is by law a prohibited person who may not possess a firearm.

That someone might only be suspected of being mentally ill is not 'justification' to prohibit someone from possessing a firearm, or to compel them to 'surrender' their guns, absent affording that individual full and comprehensive due process.

And if someone fails to obey the law with regard to selling firearms, and is convicted in a court of law of that crime, such an individual has only himself to blame for losing his ability to sell firearms.

In some states, courts do adjudicate one as being mentally ill. In others medical professionals determine whether mental illness exists in a person. Depending on the state, the two may or may not be not the same things. (Mental Incompetency and Keeping the 'Mentally Incompetent' From Voting) The variance among states as to whether "mentally ill" is a legal status or medical one is problematic insofar as it clouds an apsect of the matter that should should be crystal clear.

If one is in a state where mentally ill is a status determined by a court, I see no reason why one should be entitled to due process regarding that status. In states where mentally ill is a status determined by a medical professional, I do not believe one is entitled to due process regarding that professional's determination because being mentally ill in those states is a medical status, not a legal status. One is free to obtain a second, third, etc. opinion about whether one is mentally ill.

Are you advocating that people with diagnosed mental illnesses that potentially make their owning a gun dangerous to others or themselves should nonetheless be permitted to own a firearm, provided they have not also been declared mentally incompetent?

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[TNHarley]

What are they going to do NEXT TIME a mass shooting occurs outside of the black community(because nobody cares about them)?
Issue more "small steps" that equate to ZILCH except for pissing off legal gun owners?
Hell, we cant even keep our current laws working properly. Lets be real. This is nothing but a fools party.
How do poor people pass down family heirlooms? Get a loan so they can pay someone to regulate the transaction? This is ridiculous nonsense. And not to mention unconstitutional sections that lie here.
How does the president have the authority to regulate private firearm transactions?
How is expanding the current ATF constitutional? Hell man, the DHS itself is unconstitutional.

 

[320 Years of History]

What are they going to do NEXT TIME a mass shooting occurs outside of the black community(because nobody cares about them)?
Issue more "small steps" that equate to ZILCH except for pissing off legal gun owners?
Hell, we cant even keep our current laws working properly. Lets be real. This is nothing but a fools party.
How do poor people pass down family heirlooms? Get a loan so they can pay someone to regulate the transaction? This is ridiculous nonsense. And not to mention unconstitutional sections that lie here.
How does the president have the authority to regulate private firearm transactions?
How is expanding the current ATF constitutional? Hell man, the DHS itself is unconstitutional.

Red:
Ah, yes. Small steps aren't worth taking, even if they produce modest results because, of course, if one cannot solve all the ills in one fell swoop, it's not worth bothering to resolve any of them, or to any degree, at all.

 

[TNHarley]

What are they going to do NEXT TIME a mass shooting occurs outside of the black community(because nobody cares about them)?
Issue more "small steps" that equate to ZILCH except for pissing off legal gun owners?
Hell, we cant even keep our current laws working properly. Lets be real. This is nothing but a fools party.
How do poor people pass down family heirlooms? Get a loan so they can pay someone to regulate the transaction? This is ridiculous nonsense. And not to mention unconstitutional sections that lie here.
How does the president have the authority to regulate private firearm transactions?
How is expanding the current ATF constitutional? Hell man, the DHS itself is unconstitutional.

Red:
Ah, yes. Small steps aren't worth taking, even if they produce modest results because, of course, if one cannot solve all the ills in one fell swoop, it's not worth bothering to resolve any of them, or to any degree, at all.

Small steps are why we have a bloated bureaucracy that we cant account or. Small steps are why we have NO accountability. Small steps are why we are expanding unconstitutional programs and nobody cares because it has become the "norm".
yea, good point.
BTW, freedom isn't free.

 

[TNHarley]

OP, you are always talking about how people cant stick to your subject, but then you ignore 3/4 of what I said

 

[320 Years of History]

Small steps are why we have a bloated bureaucracy that we cant account or. Small steps are why we have NO accountability. Small steps are why we are expanding unconstitutional programs and nobody cares because it has become the "norm".
yea, good point.
BTW, freedom isn't free.

Ignoratio elenchi...

...And all of that, true or not, has nothing to do with whether any of the things Mr. Obama has included in his latest E.O. will or will not achieve any reduction in the quantity of guns that become available to folks who have no business with one, nor with whether any lives are saved or injury avoided.

Have you other "red herrings" you care to raise?

 

[TNHarley]

Small steps are why we have a bloated bureaucracy that we cant account or. Small steps are why we have NO accountability. Small steps are why we are expanding unconstitutional programs and nobody cares because it has become the "norm".
yea, good point.
BTW, freedom isn't free.

Ignoratio elenchi...

...And all of that, true or not, has nothing to do with whether any of the things Mr. Obama has included in his latest E.O. will or will not achieve any reduction in the quantity of guns that become available to folks who have no business with one, nor with whether any lives are saved or injury avoided.

Have you other "red herrings" you care to raise?

It was examples to show that reality isn't emotion biased

 

[320 Years of History]

Small steps are why we have a bloated bureaucracy that we cant account or. Small steps are why we have NO accountability. Small steps are why we are expanding unconstitutional programs and nobody cares because it has become the "norm".
yea, good point.
BTW, freedom isn't free.

Ignoratio elenchi...

...And all of that, true or not, has nothing to do with whether any of the things Mr. Obama has included in his latest E.O. will or will not achieve any reduction in the quantity of guns that become available to folks who have no business with one, nor with whether any lives are saved or injury avoided.

Have you other "red herrings" you care to raise?

It was examples to show that reality isn't emotion biased

It doesn't matter that you felt that was your aim in making the remarks. They yet have nothing to do with whether Mr. Obama's initiatives will have any effect on reducing gun deaths, gun injuries and the incidence of illegal gun acquisition, which are the key aims of his latest E.O.

Have you any specific evidence that shows the things in the E.O. will in no way accomplish any degree of incremental improvement in any of the objectives they aim to achieve?

 

[TNHarley]

Small steps are why we have a bloated bureaucracy that we cant account or. Small steps are why we have NO accountability. Small steps are why we are expanding unconstitutional programs and nobody cares because it has become the "norm".
yea, good point.
BTW, freedom isn't free.

Ignoratio elenchi...

...And all of that, true or not, has nothing to do with whether any of the things Mr. Obama has included in his latest E.O. will or will not achieve any reduction in the quantity of guns that become available to folks who have no business with one, nor with whether any lives are saved or injury avoided.

Have you other "red herrings" you care to raise?

It was examples to show that reality isn't emotion biased

It doesn't matter that you felt that was your aim in making the remarks. They yet have nothing to do with whether Mr. Obama's initiatives will have any effect on reducing gun deaths, gun injuries and the incidence of illegal gun acquisition, which are the key aims of his latest E.O.

Have you any specific evidence that shows the things in the E.O. will in no way accomplish any degree of incremental improvement in any of the objectives they aim to achieve?

Do you want to go over recent mass shootings and their gun obtainment?
It will take a while considering how many goes on in the ghetto. It will probably be even harder proving criminals would follow that lol

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you want to go over recent mass shootings and their gun obtainment?
It will take a while considering how many goes on in the ghetto. It will probably be even harder proving criminals would follow that lol

False Dilemma

Whatever impact may or may not occur with regard to the E.O.'s impact on mass shootings does not have a bearing on whether the E.O.'s elements will have an impact on any other form of illegal gun activity or possession. Reducing mass shootings isn't the sole aim of the E.O.

See there. I knew you could come up with another fallacious line of discussion to avoid addressing whether the E.O. initiatives may reduce illegal gun use or possession, which is what they aim to achieve. Might you like to try for false trilemma?

 

[TNHarley]

Do you want to go over recent mass shootings and their gun obtainment?
It will take a while considering how many goes on in the ghetto. It will probably be even harder proving criminals would follow that lol

False Dilemma

Whatever impact may or may not occur with regard to the E.O.'s impact on mass shootings does not have a bearing on whether the E.O.'s elements will have an impact on any other form of illegal gun activity or possession. Reducing mass shootings isn't the sole aim of the E.O.

See there. I knew you could come up with another fallacious line of discussion to avoid addressing whether the E.O. initiatives may reduce illegal gun use or possession, which is what they aim to achieve. Might you like to try for false trilemma?

You "intellectuals" and your brands for posts you don't want to respond to lol..
So you think an EO about restricting private firearm sales will be applied by criminals that buy their guns illegally?

 

[320 Years of History]

What are they going to do NEXT TIME a mass shooting occurs outside of the black community(because nobody cares about them)?
Issue more "small steps" that equate to ZILCH except for pissing off legal gun owners?
Hell, we cant even keep our current laws working properly. Lets be real. This is nothing but a fools party.
How do poor people pass down family heirlooms? Get a loan so they can pay someone to regulate the transaction? This is ridiculous nonsense. And not to mention unconstitutional sections that lie here.
How does the president have the authority to regulate private firearm transactions?
How is expanding the current ATF constitutional? Hell man, the DHS itself is unconstitutional.

OP, you are always talking about how people cant stick to your subject, but then you ignore 3/4 of what I said

I ignored most of what you wrote because all of what I ignored has nothing to do with the realizable effectiveness of the actions put forth in Mr. Obama's latest E.O. I ignored it because not one bit of what I ignored speaks to whether any of the E.O's elements will help to reduce the incidence of gun deaths, gun injuries and illegal gun possession.

I responded to the "small steps" bit because it is at least so that the steps noted in the E.O are small ones and will plausibly have small impacts, but they may surprise us and have larger than small impacts.

That said, I was of a mind to ignore the whole damn post because all of it, even the "small steps" part, consists of a bunch of fallaciously based objections to the E.O. Not one thing you raised provided a shred of evidence indicating that there's any reason to think that the E.O.'s elements will not help to ameliorate the downsides associated with our right to bear arms.

 

[TNHarley]

What are they going to do NEXT TIME a mass shooting occurs outside of the black community(because nobody cares about them)?
Issue more "small steps" that equate to ZILCH except for pissing off legal gun owners?
Hell, we cant even keep our current laws working properly. Lets be real. This is nothing but a fools party.
How do poor people pass down family heirlooms? Get a loan so they can pay someone to regulate the transaction? This is ridiculous nonsense. And not to mention unconstitutional sections that lie here.
How does the president have the authority to regulate private firearm transactions?
How is expanding the current ATF constitutional? Hell man, the DHS itself is unconstitutional.

OP, you are always talking about how people cant stick to your subject, but then you ignore 3/4 of what I said

I ignored most of what you wrote because all of what I ignored has nothing to do with the realizable effectiveness of the actions put forth in Mr. Obama's latest E.O. I ignored it because not one bit of what I ignored speaks to whether any of the E.O's elements will help to reduce the incidence of gun deaths, gun injuries and illegal gun possession.

I responded to the "small steps" bit because it is at least so that the steps noted in the E.O are small ones and will plausibly have small impacts, but they may surprise us and have larger than small impacts.

That said, I was of a mind to ignore the whole damn post because all of it, even the "small steps" part, consists of a bunch of fallaciously based objections to the E.O. Not one thing you raised provided a shred of evidence indicating that there's any reason to think that the E.O.'s elements will not help to ameliorate the downsides
associated with our right to bear arms.

"schizophrenia"
try reading your OP. You didn't set any stipulations to responding NOR did you even mention that. I commented on your material. And you didn't want to respond because I cant read your mind? LMAO
Keep using those phrases big boy. Does you a lot of justice

 

[Elvis Obama]

Will the President's EO have an impact? Not really. There's a difference between taking small steps and nibbling around the edges of a problem. A problem that is never properly defined in the first place.

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you want to go over recent mass shootings and their gun obtainment?
It will take a while considering how many goes on in the ghetto. It will probably be even harder proving criminals would follow that lol

False Dilemma

Whatever impact may or may not occur with regard to the E.O.'s impact on mass shootings does not have a bearing on whether the E.O.'s elements will have an impact on any other form of illegal gun activity or possession. Reducing mass shootings isn't the sole aim of the E.O.

See there. I knew you could come up with another fallacious line of discussion to avoid addressing whether the E.O. initiatives may reduce illegal gun use or possession, which is what they aim to achieve. Might you like to try for false trilemma?

You "intellectuals" and your brands for posts you don't want to respond to lol..
So you think an EO about restricting private firearm sales will be applied by criminals that buy their guns illegally?

Red:
I have no brands for posts. I didn't invent terms used to identify the various formal and informal logical fallacies others present from time to time even though I'm aware of them.

My suggestion is that one (you and/or others) refrain from using rational fallacies to make points/. Sticking to lines of reasoning that are not fallacious, or merely identifying the nature and extent to which a policy decision will or will not achieve its intended ends, will prevent me from pointing out the fallacious nature of one's remarks.

FWIW, almost without exception, most intellectuals will readily cede a point in an argument when one presents an on-point and intelligent rebuttal or counter argument. Some intellectuals will put forth fallacious arguments; however, when their intellectual opponents call them out for having done so, they recognize and accept the verity of their oppositions' discounting of their fallacious argument for its lack of rigor. The appropriate response is to present a stronger case or yield, perhaps just for the time being, if only to reconsider the matter and develop a stronger case if not to yield entirely.

In contrast, senseless obduracy and ad hominem attacks are the tools of the non-intellectual, often ones who have little other than ideology, gut feelings, or the word of others as the basis for their espousal of whatever position they have.

Blue:
Regardless of what an E.O. is about, criminals will ignore those laws that, were they to adhere to them, prohibit acts they are of a mind to perform. When criminals act unlawfully, they do so while holding one or more of the following assumptions:

• Their deed will not be discovered.
• Their deed may be discovered, but that their identity as (true) perpetrators of the act will not.
• Their deed and that they did it will both be discovered, but they will successfully (one their own or with others' aid) abscond from the long arm of the law.
• Their deed and identity will both be discovered and they will not successfully abscond; however, so long as they succeed in performing the deed, they will consider themselves successful enough. In turn, they determine the risk of failing to accomplish the act(s) is such that it's still "worth it" for them to attempt to perform the deed.

Were whether criminals will follow them a controlling factor in whether to enact a law, there'd be no point in ratifying any laws.

Whether I think such an E.O.'s spirit and letter will be applied by criminals has no bearing on whether that E.O's objectives will be achieved as a result of the criminals' failure to comply or not. There are all manners of laws and rules that criminals routinely ignore and that nonetheless thwart some criminals' aims even though those laws and rules do not thwart all criminals' aims. I'm okay with making incremental gains in the effort to impede criminal activity and reducing the rates of success that criminals in total experience.

Assuming the latest E.O. succeeds in preventing some gun deaths, gun injuries and illegal gun possessions, how small would that success need to be for you to deem it not worth having bothered to achieve that level of success? How successful would the E.O's stipulated efforts need to be for you deem it worth having bothered to attempt achieving that level of success?